guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Flame Geyser
Anyone know the type of damage? Someone with a high level ranger could test it then I can compare with my high level warrior... Wouldn't it be nearly impossible to determine the type beyond labelling it as physical or elemental? You'd have to have either a Mantra or something that triggers on a certain damage type, and none of those exist in presearing. Silver40596 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC) :no. insignia's can be found in pre-searing and salvaged off with a charr salvage kit, placed on armor, and used to determine the type of damage done.-- (Talk) ( ) 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Ok, but it would be awfully hard to find all 4 types of elemental insignia in presearing...still, I have always wondered whether it was REALLY fire damage. Silver40596 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC) :awfully hard!=impossible-- (Talk) ( ) 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Then why did you suggest it? Silver40596 :?? I suggested it because you asked if it would be impossible to test for the type of damage!-- (Talk) ( ) 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I did...and now you are saying that it is impossible. Silver40596 :Umm, read it again^^. I said that awfully hard != impossible (!= means "not equal")-- (Talk) ( ) 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Oh sorry...I'm used to =/= meaning impossible. I thought you just got carried away with how difficult it was. Haha. Silver40596 Amount of damage? Survivability? This page currently claims 500 damage, which is not survivable by any non-LDoA candidate. The official site claims that a little armor rating and a couple hundred health is all you need to survive. As far as I can tell, no one has posted on either wiki any evidence supporting either claim. My L8 ranger walked into one and suffered 241 damage with 30 Armor (surviving with 4 hp). The pet survived a different geyser with 239/240 damage. (And, incidentally, in both cases, it triggered well outside the visible range of the trap.) The Necromancer's Novice quest was not active. So, does this mean the geysers do far less than 500 damage? Or is the damage calibrated (in part) by profession? (It seems an odd coincidence to survive with barely enough HPs.) Has anyone done explicit testing to determine the amt of damage? Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC) :Well, I haven't got a clue about most stuff, but a ranger has +30 armor vs elemental damage, so if this thing deals fire damage (well, it would be logical), you actually had 60 AL against it.-- [[User:El_Nazgir|'El_Nazgir']] 09:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ::Plus the 500 damage probably could not be tested with a 60 al character seeing as those don't exist in presearing, so the 500 damage was probably from 0 al.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 09:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC) :::Hmmn. I thought (per our own armor rating article) that Armor 60 meant 100% base damage. Assuming the formula holds, 240 damage results from 500 damage only for AC=102 or so. My results imply: :::*241 damage to L8 ranger at AC ~42 -> base damage = 177 (assuming the geyser delivers some type of elem damage and ignoring that head gear is AC40 not 42) :::*239 damage to L8 pet at AC 44 (= 3*8 + 20) -> base damage = 181 :::*Alternatively, the longstanding defense adjustment formula is now wrong, adjustment != 2^((60-armor)/40) :::So, I think the note needs updating. I would argue that the base damage is probably 180 and that survivability requirements are L19, L17, L12 for casters/others/warriors w/base armor; drop one level for PRE collector armor, drop to L8 for rangers (w/30 vs elem damage). However, I would love to see more data before putting in specifics. Anyone visiting the cats for farming, can you toast yourself on a geyser and post armor and damage? (esp if you have vs elem or not) Thanks! — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ::::60 AL is 100% base damage when both sides are lv20, iirc. --- -- ( ) (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC) :::::If it is, the various pages (damage calc, armor rating, ... on various sites) don't suggest that — they all say Effective Damage = (Effective Attack Damage) x (Defensive Adjustment). Effective Attack Damage depends on attacker level or attack rating (plus other things), but defensive adjustment depends strictly on AC. You can lower armor with penetration or armor-ignoring skills. :::::You are correct, though, to approximate 100% damage for L20 vs L20, which takes both armor and attacker level/rating into account. So, it's usually safe to say that you do 100% damage against opponents of same level (all other things equal). (Charles Ensign says that almost explicitly on his guru page.) :::::Let me know if you think I'm drawing mistaken conclusions from the various articles. And, I'd still like to understand how 500 base results in less than half that to low AC, low level ranger, pet. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::The 500 may come from the skill's actul desciption in the damage monitor, but either way it's blatantly wrong as I can vouch it never does anywhere near 500 damage. ::::::Level does not matter at all except for spellcasters, iitc. (T/ ) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC) :::::::then it must not be a spellcaster, but an attack Roland Cyerni 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC) (re-indent) OK, figured it out, I think. (1) damage to naked char was 500 → definition of base damage; (2) L8 pet received 233 → consistent ratio for AR 44; (3) rangers received either 241 or 250 damage → consistent ratio for AR 42 or 40 (12 or 10 + vs elemental 30) What's wrong is the chart in the armor (rating) article. Well, not wrong; misleading, as it doesn't match the damage calculation formula. The Approximate Damage (ApproxD) depends on the Raw Damage (RD) and the Armor Effect (AE). ::ApproxD = RD × AE; For damage that ignores armor, AE is set to 1. A level 20 character will do the damage stated in the skill description to a character with 60 armor. A level 20 character with 12 in a weapon attribute will do the stated weapon damage to a character with 60 armor. That's not exactly correct. I believe the following is true: :L20 characters will usually hit AR60 targets with stated weapon damage. It's not innate to being L20, it's because chars will have done the things necessary to boost their damage output to match the armor's damage reduction) *L20 Casters have increased their damage by the same amount by which AR60 lowers damage (compared to base); *Warriors at L20 will use weapons supported by an attribute of 12, and that increases their damage by the same amount by which AR60 lowers... Also, the armor rating chart needs to be adjusted to match the formula. Damage should be 100% at AR0 so that Damage = (Raw Damage) x (Armor Effect) works. The way the chart reads now is to imply AR60 is base damage, since that has the 100% multiplier. I'm going to update the notes here to include survivability (it's L8 for rangers, with better armor; higher level for others, less for warriors). I'm also going to re-write the above for the armor rating and damage calc talks...and suggest some re-written articles. Please let me know if you think I am misreading the current info or misinterpreting the results from the geysers. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC) :Though archaic, the formulae listed in Damage Calculation are 99.5% correct, although the explanations are confusing at best. (I made Template:Damage and had to wade through them for hours, and even I still don't fully grasp all the mechanics.) :"100% damage" is what happens against a target with 60 armor level, assuming that the attacker is level 20 (for spells) or has a weapon mastery of 12 in some attribute. For example, Flare does 56 damage at 12 Fire Magic against an AL60 target. At 0 AL, Flare would actually deal somewhere like...well, at least 150 damage. So I'm not sure what you mean by changing the charts... :The information on Flame Geyser is clearly wrong (500 damage at 0 AL, maybe, but otherwise much less). But, because it is an environmental effect, it works a bit different. It does not ignore armor, and the damage is (probably) not related to level, since it is not an attack (and thus cannot critical) and environmental effects don't have "levels". It basically works like a high-powered Ice Dart. (T/ ) 06:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC) ::I guess I'm not being clear. Sorry. ::*The charts and the explanations are built around specific circumstances (AR60, L20); it's not wrong, just very specific. ::*However, the simple damage formula is generalized for base damage and any AR, and so it appears inconsistent with the charts/explanation. ::Re: Flame Geyser. I'm sure it's 500 base damage, assuming that "base" means without modification. I went into them naked, taking 500 damage; char level doesn't matter, as expected. Armor rating mattered, and followed a predictable, exponential pattern. However, 100% was at AR0 (not 60, as suggested by the chart). (Actually, we don't really know if 500 is base increased based on an inherrent level of the trap. However, armor will reduce it by the same percentage regardless, so it doesn't much matter.) ::Re: Flare. I'm very glad you wrote that; I can't remember reading anything that said that skill damage scaled with level. So, I went to Nightfall training area to test. Sure enough, my L20 char did more than listed skill damage (and AR55 took half the damage of AR15, as predicted). I have to test some more, but I'm pretty sure that the formula will also hold for L1 char vs. AR0. IMO, that's not obvious in the current articles. ::I guess I don't think it should be this hard to figure out approximate damage. So, my plan is to re-present the information so that charts/explanation/formulas are consistent, so that simplified rules-of-thumb are highlighted, and that it will be easier to follow. I plan to do this in my user space, so ppl can compare and decide whether it's worth mucking with the wiki. (If nothing else, it will help me understand the mechanics.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC) :::I believe one of the issues here is that we go by different definitions of "base" damage; that is generally assumed to be with level 20 characters, 12 attribute weapons, and 60 armor level, because that is when skills/weapons deal 100% of their stated damage. Damage at 0 armor level (ignoring the factor of levels) is unrealistic and so it's not used as a starting point... (T/ ) 09:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Hmmn. Ok, I'll have to accept that is the standard definition even though I find it counter-intuitive to use "base" to describe damage that's been modified by several factors. I still think it's worth taking a new look at the presentation of the math, but I'll stick with the accepted terminology. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)